Anglecian's (sp?) have apostilistic(SP?)succession?

I was just thinking, The king in England found the church of England ( If im not mistaken, it’s now called the anglecian(sp?) church). So my question is, if the king MADE the bishops in england become part of the church of england, and force them to ordain priests in that church, wouldn’t that mean that they have apostilistic(Sp?) succession? Sorry for the real BAD spelling

No. Because the only ones who can pass on the legitimate apostalic succession are the bishops who received it from those who received it from the apostles. The king was not an ordained bishop.

[quote=davidv]No. Because the only ones who can pass on the legitimate apostalic succession are the bishops who received it from those who received it from the apostles. The king was not an ordained bishop.
[/quote]

Oh well thank you

[quote=RomanRyan1088]I was just thinking, The king in England found the church of England ( If im not mistaken, it’s now called the anglecian(sp?) church). So my question is, if the king MADE the bishops in england become part of the church of england, and force them to ordain priests in that church, wouldn’t that mean that they have apostilistic(Sp?) succession? Sorry for the real BAD spelling
[/quote]

Actually yes, the original Anglican bishops did possess apostolic succession and could ordain priests (illicitly but validly). However, when King Edward VI altered the rite of Ordination, he altered the substance and invalidated the Sacrament. Pope Leo XIII affirmed in his Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ministers do not possess Holy Orders; in other words, anyone “ordained” under this form was as much a layman as I am. Over time, the priesthood in the Anglican church died out.

In recent years, though, the waters have been muddied a bit. Some Anglicans, realizing that they have not received Holy Orders, have sought out bishops from some schismatic churches. These bishops, who have been validly ordained, agree for whatever reason to confer the sacrament upon an Anglican minister.

To sum it all up, while the vast majority of Anglican ministers are not priests, there are a small number who have been ordained by valid bishops, either by having a scismatic bishop ordain them or by converting from Mother Church or Orthodoxy.

For more information on the validity of Anglican Orders, see this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[quote=TLM Altar Boy]Actually yes, the original Anglican bishops did possess apostolic succession and could ordain priests (illicitly but validly). However, when King Edward VI altered the rite of Ordination, he altered the substance and invalidated the Sacrament. Pope Leo XIII affirmed in his Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ministers do not possess Holy Orders; in other words, anyone “ordained” under this form was as much a layman as I am. Over time, the priesthood in the Anglican church died out.

In recent years, though, the waters have been muddied a bit. Some Anglicans, realizing that they have not received Holy Orders, have sought out bishops from some schismatic churches. These bishops, who have been validly ordained, agree for whatever reason to confer the sacrament upon an Anglican minister.

To sum it all up, while the vast majority of Anglican ministers are not priests, there are a small number who have been ordained by valid bishops, either by having a scismatic bishop ordain them or by converting from Mother Church or Orthodoxy.

For more information on the validity of Anglican Orders, see this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
[/quote]

And Anglicans look at it all a little differently. If anyone were interested (and there is no particular reason they should be), the best books on the Anglican position are by a RC priest, Fr. J. J. Hughes, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Or one might read the Anglican response to Apostolicae Curae, *Saepius Officio *. Or, one might read the best RC exposition, by a (then) Jesuit, Francis Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. It is sad subject. In the end, Anglicans affirm that they do indeed posses valid orders and that when an appropriate minister, using the appropriate matter and form and possessing the intent to do what the Church does, confects a sacrament, it is as validly confected as when a RC minister does it. RCs are reminded that this is not the position of the RCC.

BTW, I’m not talking about the strange Anglican habit of late, of putting sacerdotal garments on females. Proper matter is required, to transmit Holy Orders.

GKC

GKC:
My assumption is that you agree with the RCC with regard to what is proper matter? Myself - I am Anglican after leaving the Episcopal Church over the Robinson affair. Being a cradle Catholic for nearly five decades I thought I would have a problem with woman priests, but spending nearly 2 years with a female pastor - I had none.

My issue was more with the process by which female ordination was achieved rather than with the fact that a priest was female. Also the lack of accommodation for those who could not accept the innovation was/ is wrong. 2000 years of tradition is a lot to shake and they were not the ones who changed the concept. I respect the view of some that a female priest is just not acceptable. Personally, I believe that God has the power to use any instrument.

BTW - I found my vicar to be much more pastoral than any RCC priest I had encountered. She also took a lot of abuse with regard to being a priest and I admired the way she handled it.

[quote=Anglo-catholic]GKC:
My assumption is that you agree with the RCC with regard to what is proper matter? Myself - I am Anglican after leaving the Episcopal Church over the Robinson affair. Being a cradle Catholic for nearly five decades I thought I would have a problem with woman priests, but spending nearly 2 years with a female pastor - I had none.

My issue was more with the process by which female ordination was achieved rather than with the fact that a priest was female. Also the lack of accommodation for those who could not accept the innovation was/ is wrong. 2000 years of tradition is a lot to shake and they were not the ones who changed the concept. I respect the view of some that a female priest is just not acceptable. Personally, I believe that God has the power to use any instrument.

BTW - I found my vicar to be much more pastoral than any RCC priest I had encountered. She also took a lot of abuse with regard to being a priest and I admired the way she handled it.
[/quote]

Greetings, Anglo-catholic.

Your assumption is correct. And while I would agree with you that the out of order and in your face methods which were used to singlehandledly toss out those 2000 years of tradition and to marginalize those who couldn’t stomach that, and other matters, are valid points, the killer is to be found in Ordiantio sacerdotalis. When Papa is right, he’s right. It is not that I (or any orthodox Anglican) do not find the idea of a female priest acceptable. We find them impossible, ontologically. I have no doubt that God could use any instrument. I have no doubt what instrument He did, in fact, chose to use for the priesthood. Those 2000 years of Church history tell me that.

It is mildly ironic, of course, that I defend the concept of the validity of Anglican Orders while denying the validity of females in collars, anywhere. But of course, I could not do the first without doing the second. I have no doubt you might find a given female to have a pastoral calling, and that totally without indulging in sentimental sterotypes; but what she will not have is the ablility to confect the sacraments, something I find even more compelling. You very well may have a minister (in the generic sense) there, but you have no priest. ( All together, now, “Neither do any Anglicans!”).

A question: You left ECUSA, over the bishop-shaped object in NH. And you are an Anglican with a female minister. AMIA? Somewhere else?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

[quote=GKC]And Anglicans look at it all a little differently. If anyone were interested (and there is no particular reason they should be),

GKC
[/quote]

:rotfl: I love it! Actually that’s exactly how I feel. The Anglicans/Episcopalians are a theological joke which sprang from the cod-piece of a gluttonous, lecherous King. They have absolutely no legitimacy or standing. The fact that some bishops and ministers/priests/priestesses or whatever the hell they are would slither off to get valid orders from schismatics really takes the biscout I must say. I personally have never heard of this, but I really wouldn’t put it past them.

The grasp at any straw to give them legitimacy without actually having to admit their guilt.

[quote=Salvo]:rotfl: I love it! Actually that’s exactly how I feel. The Anglicans/Episcopalians are a theological joke which sprang from the cod-piece of a gluttonous, lecherous King. They have absolutely no legitimacy or standing. The fact that some bishops and ministers/priests/priestesses or whatever the hell they are would slither off to get valid orders from schismatics really takes the biscout I must say. I personally have never heard of this, but I really wouldn’t put it past them.

The grasp at any straw to give them legitimacy without actually having to admit their guilt.
[/quote]

Salvo,

Again, your post is rude, crude, arrogant, and hateful. You seem to have a knack for it, no matter the topic on which you post.

Many years,

Neil

Greetings, Irish Melkite.

As an Anglican, I thank you for your observation above. Sometimes it’s useful to discuss dynastic marriage and the impediment/annulment/dispensation system that prevailed in the 16th century (pre-Trent), with observations on the fallout of the battle of Pavia. Not, I think, in this case.

Thanks again.

GKC

Anglicans do not think their Church was established by King Henry VIII. They hold that the English Church re-asserted it’s autocephalous status as a body independent of Rome under Henry VIII. For more information see “The Ways and Teachings of the Church” by the Reverend Leefferd M.A. Haughwout.

And Anglican Bishops and priests maintain their lines of succession fastidiously. They do not oblige the Bishop of Rome to validate them, nor do they feel obliged to be validated thereby.

Irish Mike,

Thanks for the post. And might I add, you seem to have a knack for un-charitable ad hominem.

I went to a anglican church called st. marks in portland oregon. it’s part of the anglican church of america i think. for what it’s worth, i didn’t feel the true and substantial presence of God there. I know feelings are subjective, but it felt like i was in an old wax museum. It felt like there was only a facade or gossamer of catholicism but no acetic. The aesthetic was there but the ascetic wasn’t. hard to explain and i wonder if anyone else has felt this. In my experience, they do not have valid orders unlike how i felt at a Greek orthodox church.

Again, your post is rude, crude, arrogant, and hateful. You seem to have a knack for it, no matter the topic on which you post.

you know what, everyone is entitled to there own opinions. i’ve been kicked off this site three times for offending people, weather they be feminist, homosexuals, liberals, mormons, or whatever. i’m pretty sick of cry babies on this web site. so, they’ll kick me out again and i’ll sign back up. it’s funny how an supposedly orthodox web site caters to complainers and whimpy liberals. stop being so sensitive.

Sometimes it’s useful to discuss dynastic marriage and the impediment/annulment/dispensation system that prevailed in the 16th century (pre-Trent), with observations on the fallout of the battle of Pavia. Not, I think, in this case.

i find it interesting how well educated intelligent people justify immorality by making something more complex than it actually was. the pope said no annulment, henry the VIII then crowed himself king of the church of england and brought down one of the most catholic countries of europe. he then killed his next two or three wives. yet they justify his disobedience. it’s really simple, anglicanism/episcopalianism is wrong and the church is right, no authority, no head, no body, no church.

[quote=oat soda]I went to a anglican church called st. marks in portland oregon. it’s part of the anglican church of america i think. for what it’s worth, i didn’t feel the true and substantial presence of God there. I know feelings are subjective, but it felt like i was in an old wax museum. It felt like there was only a facade or gossamer of catholicism but no acetic. The aesthetic was there but the ascetic wasn’t. hard to explain and i wonder if anyone else has felt this. In my experience, they do not have valid orders unlike how i felt at a Greek orthodox church.
[/quote]

I agree 100%. I used to live in the UK (London) and I know how the “Catholic wing” of Anglicanism likes to play dress-up and make-believe they are still Catholic. But it does absolutely come off as hollow. Like someone who sees a guitar and knows only how to play it as a percussion instrument. And I would not even mention the Orthodox church and the Anglican church in the same sentence, save to say that the two are not even in the same league. The Orthodox rites of course trace their roots to the inception of Christianity. And unlike the Roman rite, they have retained their awe-inspiring tradition, solemnity and ritual. The Catholic church could definitely learn a few lessons there.

[quote=oat soda]you know what, everyone is entitled to there own opinions. i’ve been kicked off this site three times for offending people, weather they be feminist, homosexuals, liberals, mormons, or whatever. i’m pretty sick of cry babies on this web site. so, they’ll kick me out again and i’ll sign back up. it’s funny how an supposedly orthodox web site caters to complainers and whimpy liberals. stop being so sensitive.
[/quote]

Thanks for that. I was really surprised by the posts coming from that particular poster. He seems to be tracking me around the boards and attacking me as soon as I post now. So, I’m not giving it too much credence at this point. But once again, thanks for the reality check.

[quote=oat soda]i find it interesting how well educated intelligent people justify immorality by making something more complex than it actually was. the pope said no annulment, henry the VIII then crowed himself king of the church of england and brought down one of the most catholic countries of europe. he then killed his next two or three wives. yet they justify his disobedience. it’s really simple, anglicanism/episcopalianism is wrong and the church is right, no authority, no head, no body, no church.
[/quote]

Greetings, oat soda.

You are, I take it, not very conversant with the history of the period.

The issue was quite complex; history is often like that. That’s why Newman said one had to be deep into it. Annulments were the order of the day in the 14th-16th century, as a means to handle dynastic marriages, which regularly were broken and remade for reasons of state. There was a very complicated canonical system that addressed this, with a wide variety and range of impediments which would permit a declaration of nullity, when needed. (This was so out of hand that it was one of the areas that Trent reformed, in the 24th Session). And Henry’s causa was a reasonably respectable one, whether it was taken as resting on the Levitical prohibition, as *ultra vires * for a Papal dispensation (an issue on which the Church changed its mind regularly) or on an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty in the original dispensation that permitted Henry to marry his brother’s widow in the first place. None of which carried as much weight as the armies of Catherine’s nephew, esp. after the battle of Pavia and the sack of Rome.

Me, I’m not too fond of Hank. But I know history. It isn’t cartoon cutouts. It’s complicated. You familiar with the Statutes of Praemunire and of Provisors?

GKC

[quote=GKC]Greetings, oat soda.

You are, I take it, not very conversant with the history of the period.

The issue was quite complex; history is often like that.

GKC
[/quote]

Actually Oat’s post was spot on. He managed to say the same thing you did with a lot fewer words. The only thing you are adding here is that in your opinion Henry VIII had a legitimate case for the annulment.

Regardless of whether he did or did not, the fact that he took it upon himself to create his own religion to suit his needs speaks volumes for his character…and those who continue to follow it.

St Thomas More pray for us!

[quote=Salvo]Actually Oat’s post was spot on. He managed to say the same thing you did with a lot fewer words. The only thing you are adding here is that in your opinion Henry VIII had a legitimate case for the annulment.

Regardless of whether he did or did not, the fact that he took it upon himself to create his own religion to suit his needs speaks volumes for his character…and those who continue to follow it.

St Thomas More pray for us!
[/quote]

Milage no doubt varies, Salvo, but from the perspective of some RCs, that is no doubt a reasonable conclusion.

Me, I like knowing what really went on, myself, as far as that is possible, 575+/- years later. Takes a few words to do that.

GKC

Anglicans do not have apostolic succession because they are a whole different denomination of Christianity. They are a church founded by a selfish king who made it clear he didn’t want to be Catholic.

[quote=luckyirishguy14]Anglicans do not have apostolic succession because they are a whole different denomination of Christianity. They are a church founded by a selfish king who made it clear he didn’t want to be Catholic.
[/quote]

Yes. Well said. I don’t think there’s anything else to add here :slight_smile:

GCK,

I do know exactly what the situation was back then. I’ve read about the accounts, seen the movies, watched the documentaries etc. But the bottom line is this: Henry VIII was an amoral, lecherous person. He founded his own religion strictly on the basis that he wanted his will to be done over that of the church or God. Regardless of how much you wish to muddy the waters with your moral relativism, the facts remain.

St Thomas More pray for us!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.